DOCSLIB.ORG

Paginated-E 1..104

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Paginated-E 1..104 Linguistic Relativity 917 Chomsky N (1961) Some methodological remarks on Levelt WJM (1974) Formal Grammars in Linguistics and generative grammar. Word 17: 219±239. Psycholinguistics, 3 vols. The Hague, Netherlands: Fillmore CJ, Kempler D and Wang WS-Y (eds) (1979) Mouton. Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language McNair L, Singer K, Dobrin LM and AuCoin MM (eds) Behavior. New York, NY: Academic Press. (1996) CLS 32: Papers from the Parasession on Theory and Gerken LA and Bever TG (1986) Linguistic intuitions Data in Linguistics. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic are the result of interactions between perceptual Society. processes and linguistic universals. Cognitive Science 10: Newmeyer FJ(1983) Grammatical Theory, its Limits and its 457±476. Possibilities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Greenbaum S (1988) Good English and the Grammarian. Perry TA (ed.) (1979) Evidence and Argumentation in London, UK: Longman. Linguistics. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter. Linguistic Relativity Intermediate article Lera Boroditsky, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA CONTENTS Does language shape thought? Shapes and substances Space Objects Time Conclusion Languages differ dramatically from one another in languages affect the way their speakers think terms of how they describe the world. Does having about the world? Do English, Mandarin, Russian, different ways of describing the world lead speakers and Turkish speakers end up attending to, par- of different languages also to have different ways of titioning, and remembering their experiences thinking about the world? differently simply because they speak different languages? DOES LANGUAGE SHAPE THOUGHT? The idea that thought is shaped by language is most commonly associated with the writings of Humans communicate with one another using an Benjamin Lee Whorf (Whorf, 1956). Whorf, im- amazing array of languages, and each language pressed by linguistic diversity, proposed that the differs from the next in innumerable ways (from categories and distinctions of each language en- obvious differences in pronunciation and vocabu- shrine a way of perceiving, analyzing, and acting lary to more subtle differences in grammar). For in the world. In so far as languages differ, their example, to say that `the elephant ate the peanuts' speakers too should differ in how they perceive in English, we must include tense ± the fact that the and act in objectively similar situations. This strong event happened in the past. In Mandarin and Indo- Whorfian view ± that thought and action are en- nesian, indicating when the event occurred would tirely determined by language ± has long been be optional and couldn't be included in the verb. In abandoned in the field. However, definitively Russian, the verb would need to include tense and answering less deterministic versions of the `does also whether the peanut-eater was male or female language shape thought' question has proven to be (though only in the past tense), and whether said a very difficult task. Some studies have claimed peanut-eater ate all of the peanuts or just a portion evidence to the affirmative (e.g. Boroditsky, 2001; of them. In Turkish, on the other hand, one would Bowerman, 1996; Davidoff et al., 1999; Gentner and specify (as a suffix on the verb) whether the eating Imai, 1997; Levinson, 1996; Lucy, 1992; Dehaene of the peanuts was witnessed or if it was hearsay. It et al., 1999), while others report evidence to the appears that speakers of different languages have contrary (e.g. Heider, 1972; Malt et al., 1999; Li to attend to and encode strikingly different aspects and Gleitman, 2002). of the world in order to use their language properly In recent years, research on linguistic relativity (Sapir, 1921; Slobin, 1996). Do these quirks of has enjoyed a considerable resurgence, and much 918 Linguistic Relativity new evidence regarding the effects of language on Dramatic cross-linguistic differences have also thought has become available. This chapter reviews been noted in the way languages describe spatial several lines of evidence regarding the effects of locations (Levinson, 1996). Whereas most lan- language on people's representations of space, guages (e.g. English, Dutch) rely heavily on relative time, substances, and objects. spatial terms to describe the relative locations of objects (e.g. left/right, front/back), Tzeltal (a SPACE Mayan language) relies primarily on absolute ref- erence (a system similar to the English north/south Languages differ considerably in how they de- direction system). Spatial locations that are north scribe spatial relations. Many such differences are said to be downhill, and those south are said to have been noted among English, Dutch, Finnish, be uphill. This absolute uphill/downhill system is Korean, and Spanish, among others (Bowerman, the dominant way to describe spatial relations be- 1996). For example, English distinguishes between tween objects in Tzeltal; no relational equivalents to putting things into containers (`the apple in the the English terms front/back or left/right are avail- bowl', `the letter in the envelope') and putting able (Levinson, 1996). things onto surfaces (`the apple on the table', `the To test whether this difference between the two magnet on the refrigerator door'). Cross-cutting this languages has cognitive consequences, Levinson containment/support distinction, Korean distin- (1996) tested Dutch and Tzeltal speakers in a guishes between tight and loose fit or attachment. number of spatial tasks. In one study, participants For example, putting an apple in a bowl requires a were seated at a table and an arrow lay in front of different relational term (nehta) from putting a them pointing either to the right (north) or to the letter in an envelope (kitta), because the first is an left (south). They were then rotated 180 degrees to a example of loose containment and the second second table which had two arrows (one pointing an example of tight fit. Further, putting a letter to the left (north) and one to the right (south)), and in an envelope and putting a magnet on the re- were asked to identify the arrow `like the one they frigerator are both described by kitta because both saw before'. Dutch speakers overwhelmingly chose involve close fit. the `relative' solution. If the stimulus arrow pointed To test whether these cross-linguistic differences to the right (and north), Dutch speakers chose the are reflected in the way English and Korean arrow that still pointed to the right (though it now speakers represent spatial relations, McDonough pointed south instead of the original north). Tzeltal et al. (2000) showed scenes involving tight or loose speakers did exactly the opposite, overwhelmingly fit to Korean- and English-speaking adults. After choosing the `absolute' solution. If the stimulus they had seen a few examples of either tight fit or arrow pointed to the right (and north), Tzeltal loose fit, the subjects were shown an example of speakers chose the arrow that still pointed north tight fit on one screen, and an example of loose fit (though it now pointed left instead of right). Thus, on another. While Korean-speaking adults looked Tzeltal speakers' heavy reliance on absolute refer- longer at the kind of spatial relation they had just ence in spatial description appears to have affected been familiarized with, English speakers did not their interpretation of (and performance on) a non- distinguish between the tight- and loose-fit scenes, linguistic orientation task. looking equally long at the familiar and novel Further studies of this task showed that English scenes. Further, when given several examples of speakers (English is the same as Dutch in this re- tight fit and one example of loose fit (or vice spect) do not always favor relative responses; cer- versa), Korean adults could easily pick out the odd tain contextual factors can be used to induce picture, but English speakers could not. Finally, English speakers to produce both absolute and McDonough et al. found that unlike adult English relative responses on these tasks (Li and Gleitman, speakers, prelinguistic infants (being raised in both 2002). This is not surprising since English speakers English-speaking and Korean-speaking house- use both absolute and relative forms in their lan- holds) distinguished between tight and loose fit in guage. It remains to be seen whether the same the looking-time test described above. This pattern contextual factors can induce Tzeltal speakers to of findings suggests that infants may come ready to produce relative responses despite an apparent attend to any number of spatial distinctions. How- lack of relative terms in Tzeltal. ever, as people learn and use language, the spatial In summary, the evidence available so far sug- distinctions reinforced by their particular language gests that reference frames and distinctions made are the ones that remain salient in their representa- available by one's language may indeed impose tional repertoire. important constraints on one's spatial thinking. Linguistic Relativity 919 TIME time vertically as was observed with Mandarin speakers. Languages also differ from one another on their This last result suggests two things: (1) language descriptions of time. While all languages use is a powerful tool in shaping thought, and (2) one's spatial terms to talk about time (`looking forward native language plays a role in shaping habitual to a brighter tomorrow', `proposing theories ahead thought (how we tend to think about time, for of our time', `falling behind schedule'), different example) but does not completely determine languages use different spatial terms. For example, thought in the strong Whorfian sense (since one in English, we predominantly use front/back terms can always learn a new way of talking, and with to talk about time. We can talk about the good times it, a new way of thinking). ahead of us, or the hardships behind us. We can move meetings forward, push deadlines back, and SHAPES AND SUBSTANCES eat dessert before we're finished with our vege- tables.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Philosophy of Linguistics
    Philosophy of Linguistics Brian Rabern Philosophy DSB 4.04c 0131 651 5178 brian.rabern@ed.ac.uk Geoff Pullum Linguistics DSB 2.23 0131 650 3603 gpullum@ed.ac.uk Meetings The class meetings are from 11:00 to 13:00 each Wednesday from 19th September to 28th November in Old Library 2.19, Geography building, Old Infirmary complex (weeks 1–3 and 6–11) and in 01M.469 Teaching Room 12 (Doorway 3), Medical School building. Class meetings are mandatory. Readings Required reading is to be done before the class meets; background reading to be studied as time and specific interests permit. Assessment (i) short paper (1000-1500 words) to be turned in by 5 p.m. on Monday 15th October (topics will be provided); (ii) final essay examination with choice of questions from the whole of the course. Week 1 (19th September; Old Library 2.19): Introduction What linguistics is. Linguistics as a special science. Syntax and semantics as conceived in logic. Charles Morris’s trichotomy of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Philosophy of science applied to linguistics. Required reading • Hunter, Geoffrey (1971) Metalogic: An Introduction to the Metatheory of Standard First Order Logic (Berkeley: University of California Press), pp. 4–13. Background reading • Stainton, Robert (2014) ‘Philosophy of linguistics’, Oxford Handbooks Online. Online at https://works.bepress.com/robertstainton/126/ Week 2 (26th September; Old Library 2.19): Language and languages The metaphysics of linguistics. The vexed question of whether language should be regarded as psychological, social, or purely abstract. The descriptive linguistics of the American structuralists and the mentalist/cognitive backlash; ‘God’s truth’ (realism) vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Language in Mind : Advances in the Study of Language and Thought
    Language in Mind This page intentionally left blank Language in Mind Advances in the Study of Language and Thought edited by Dedre Gentner and Susan Goldin-Meadow A Bradford Book The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England ( 2003 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or informa- tion storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher. This book was set in Sabon on 3B2 by Asco Typesetters, Hong Kong. Printed and bound in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Language in mind ; advances in the study of language and thought / edited by Dedre Gentner and S. Goldin-Meadow. p. cm. ‘‘A Bradford book.’’ Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-262-07243-2 (hc. : alk. paper)—ISBN 0-262-57163-3 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Psycholinguistics. 2. Cognition. I. Gentner, Dedre. II. Goldin, Susan. P37 .L357 2003 4010.9—dc21 2002029578 Contents Contributors vii Acknowledgments ix I Introduction 1 Whither Whorf 3 Dedre Gentner and Susan Goldin-Meadow II Position Statements 15 1 Languages and Representations 17 Eve V. Clark 2 Language and Mind: Let’s Get the Issues Straight! 25 Stephen C. Levinson 3 The Key Is Social Cognition 47 Michael Tomasello III Language as Lens: Does the Language We Acquire Influence How We See the World? 59 4 Sex, Syntax, and Semantics 61 Lera Boroditsky, Lauren A. Schmidt, and Webb Phillips 5 Speaking versus Thinking about Objects and Actions 81 Barbara C.
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistic Relativity Hyp
    THE LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY HYPOTHESIS by Michele Nathan A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Social Science in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, Florida December 1973 THE LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY HYPOTHESIS by Michele Nathan This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate's thesis advisor, Dr. John D. Early, Department of Anthropology, and has been approved by the members of his supervisory committee. It was submitted to the faculty of the College of Social Science and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts. SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: &~ rl7 IC?13 (date) 1 ii ABSTRACT Author: Michele Nathan Title: The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis Institution: Florida Atlantic University Degree: Master of Arts Year: 1973 Although interest in the linguistic relativity hypothesis seems to have waned in recent years, this thesis attempts to assess the available evidence supporting it in order to show that further investigation of the hypothesis might be most profitable. Special attention is paid to the fact that anthropology has largely failed to substantiate any claims that correlations between culture and the semantics of language do exist. This has been due to the impressionistic nature of the studies in this area. The use of statistics and hypothesis testing to provide mor.e rigorous methodology is discussed in the hope that employing such paradigms would enable anthropology to contribute some sound evidence regarding t~~ hypothesis. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction • 1 CHAPTER I THE.HISTORY OF THE FORMULATION OF THE HYPOTHESIS.
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistic Determinism and Mutability: the Sapir-Whorf "Hypothesis" and Intercultural Communication
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 403 761 FL 024 384 AUTHOR van Troyer, Gene TITLE Linguistic Determinism and Mutability: The Sapir-Whorf "Hypothesis" and Intercultural Communication. PUB DATE Dec 94 NOTE 18p. PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142) Journal Articles (080) JOURNAL CIT JALT Journal; v16 n2 p163-78 Dec 1994 EDRS PRICE MFO1 /PCO1 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Foreign Countries; *Intercultural Communication; *Language Research; *Linguistic Theory; Research Methodology; Scientific Methodology IDENTIFIERS *Sapir (Edward); Whorf (Benjamin Lee); *Whorfian Hypothesis ABSTRACT The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, long considered a factor in intercultural communication, is discussed. Empirical studies that have tended to validate the hypothesis are reviewed, and the hypothesis is then considered from the standpoint of empirical and scientific research requirements. It is shown that the hypothesis has never been formally defined for testing, and therefore does not exist as a scientifically testable thesis. As a result, all studies that have attempted to interpret empirical data accorded to the hypothesis are either flawed or invalid because they have tested something other than the hypothesis. It is concluded that the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis exists only as a notion, and has no meaningful relation to intercultural communication. Includes an abstract in Japanese. Contains 22 references. (Author/MSE) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION AND CENTER (ERIC) DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL This document has been reproduced as HAS BE N GRANTEDBY ceived from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Metaphoric Structuring: Understanding Time Through Spatial Metaphors
    COGNITION Cognition 75 (2000) 1±28 www.elsevier.com/locate/cognit Metaphoric structuring: understanding time through spatial metaphors Lera Boroditsky* Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Jordan Hall, Bldg. 420, Stanford, CA 94305-2130, USA Received 17 December 1998; received in revised form 22 September 1999; accepted 23 October 1999 Abstract The present paper evaluates the claim that abstract conceptual domains are structured through metaphorical mappings from domains grounded directly in experience. In particular, the paper asks whether the abstract domain of time gets its relational structure from the more concrete domain of space. Relational similarities between space and time are outlined along with several explanations of how these similarities may have arisen. Three experiments designed to distinguish between these explanations are described. The results indicate that (1) the domains of space and time do share conceptual structure, (2) spatial relational infor- mation is just as useful for thinking about time as temporal information, and (3) with frequent use, mappings between space and time come to be stored in the domain of time and so thinking about time does not necessarily require access to spatial schemas. These ®ndings provide some of the ®rst empirical evidence for Metaphoric Structuring. It appears that abstract domains such as time are indeed shaped by metaphorical mappings from more concrete and experiential domains such as space. q 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Metaphoric structuring; Understanding time; Spatial metaphors 1. Introduction How do we come to represent and reason about abstract domains like time, love, justice, or ideas? There are at least two interesting puzzles here.
    [Show full text]
  • Thoughts in Motion
    ! ! "# $ % & #''# #() (*+,(( - . / 0& /& &1 , ' ,2 &##/ # ,# & 3, ,/4 # 56/'# / & , , & , ' & / & ' , # # # & 7 '& & ' 3#/(((6,0 '# & / # 8 # 8 # & '# , ' & # '& ,% & # / # # & # ,9& / '# #' '# , 3 6, 3 & 6 # ,% / # / /& '# # 3 & '4 56'/ #/ ' # # & ' 34 56, # , ' & ,2 : # 3 6 & # '; # , / # ' &' ; 3,,/ <6,2 / ' & ' / / , ! (* 7== ,',= &< > 7 ' 777&?@* 2$-@*A@*B?@A(* 2$-@*A@*B?@A(AA 2-?((C@ % & #/(B@ Thoughts in Motion The Role of Long-Term L1 and Short-Term L2 Experience when Talking and Thinking of Caused Motion Guillermo Montero-Melis Centre for Research on Bilingualism Department of Swedish Language and Multilingualism Stockholm University Doctoral Dissertation 2017 Centre for Research on Bilingualism Department of Swedish Language and Multilingualism Stockholm University Copyright: Guillermo Montero-Melis Printing: Universitetsservice AB, Stockholm 2017 Correspondence: SE 106 91 Stockholm www.biling.su.se ISBN 978-91-7649-807-1 (print) ISBN 978-91-7649-808-8 (electronic) ISSN 1400-5921 A mi abuelo Manuel Melis, por su amor al saber Acknowledgements Two persons have mainly guided my efforts. I am deeply grateful to my main advisors, Manne
    [Show full text]
  • How Languages Construct Time Lera Boroditsky Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, USA
    CHAPTER 20 How Languages Construct Time Lera Boroditsky Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, USA Summary (OW DO PEOPLE CONSTRUCT THEIR MENTAL REPRESENTATIONS OF TIME ) FOCUS ON WORK EXAMIN ING THE ROLE THAT SPATIAL METAPHORS AND BASIC SPATIAL REPRESENTATIONS PLAY IN CONSTRUCTING REP RESENTATIONS OF TIME ACROSS LANGUAGES 4HE RESULTS REVEAL THAT THE METAPHORS WE USE TO TALK ABOUT TIME HAVE BOTH IMMEDIATE AND LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES FOR HOW WE CONCEPTUALIZE AND REASON ABOUT THIS FUNDAMENTAL DOMAIN OF EXPERIENCE (OW PEOPLE CONCEPTUALIZE TIME APPEARS TO DEPEND ON HOW THE LANGUAGES THEY SPEAK TEND TO TALK ABOUT TIME THE CURRENT LINGUISTIC CONTEXT WHAT LANGUAGE IS BEING SPOKEN AND ALSO ON THE PARTICULAR METAPHORS BEING USED TO TALK ABOUT TIME IN THE MOMENT &URTHER PEOPLE WHO CONCEPTUALIZE SPACE DIFFERENTLY ALSO CON CEPTUALIZE TIME DIFFERENTLY SUGGESTING THAT PEOPLE CO OPT REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD EG SPACE IN ORDER TO MENTALLY REPRESENT MORE ABSTRACT OR INTANGIBLE ENTITIES EG TIME 4AKEN ALL TOGETHER THESE lNDINGS SHOW THAT CONCEPTIONS OF EVEN SUCH FUNDAMENTAL DOMAINS AS TIME DIFFER DRAMATICALLY ACROSS CULTURES AND GROUPS 4HE RESULTS REVEAL SOME OF THE MECHA NISMS THROUGH WHICH LANGUAGES AND CULTURES HELP CONSTRUCT OUR BASIC NOTIONS OF TIME /NE OF THE GREAT MYSTERIES OF THE MIND IS HOW WE ARE ABLE TO THINK ABOUT THINGS WE CAN NEVER SEE OR TOUCH (OW DO WE COME TO REPRESENT AND REASON ABOUT ABSTRACT DOMAINS LIKE TIME JUSTICE OR IDEAS !LL OF OUR EXPERIENCE OF THE WORLD IS PHYSICAL ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH SENSORY PERCEPTION
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistic Relativity, Cultural Relativityn and Foreign Language Teaching
    Linguistic Relativity, Cultural Relativityn and Foreign Language Teaching A. Effendi Kadarisman State University of Malang Abstract: Every language is assumed to be unique, structurally and culturally. Taking this neo-Bloomfieldian assumption at the outset, this paper first points out the inadequacy of sentence grammars for foreign language teaching, Toward this end, the paper further argues for the necessity of understanding linguistic and cultural relativity. Linguistic relativity, or better known as the Sapir-whorf hypothesis, suggesis that the way we perceive and categorize reality is partly determined by the language we speak; and cultural relativity implies that verbalization of concepts in a particular language is often culturally conditioned. As related to the field of foreign language teaching, relativity across languages and cultures presupposes contrastive analysis in a very broad sense. Thus pointing out differences in language structures and cultural conventions should lead students to better acquisition of linguistic and cultural sensitivity. Key words: linguistic relativity, cultural relativity, Sapir_Worf hypo_ thesis, foreign language teaching ''ALL GRAMMARS LEAK'' The statement "All grammars leak" is a quotation from Edward sapir's Language (p. 38), first publishedin 1921; and since then its predictive power has been revealing. This section gives a brief overview of grammars and points out how they leak. My approach in this section is both analytical and historical, and the argument in this paper swings back and forth between applied and theoretical linguistics. since modern linguistics as the 2005 Volume WI, Number !, February Kadar is man, L i n gu is t i c Re lat iv i 2 TEFLIN Journal, ty, C u I tu ra I Re lat iv i ty 3 a linguistic investigation The Saussurean legacy is best defined as structuralism, rise of Generative Grammar with fascinating terms (such as well as competence of culture is predominantly structural, methodoiogically as and performance, deep structure and surfaie structure) made EFL technically.
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistic Relativity Phillip Wolff∗ and Kevin J
    Advanced Review Linguistic relativity Phillip Wolff∗ and Kevin J. Holmes The central question in research on linguistic relativity, or the Whorfian hypothesis, is whether people who speak different languages think differently. The recent resurgence of research on this question can be attributed, in part, to new insights about the ways in which language might impact thought. We identify seven categories of hypotheses about the possible effects of language on thought across a wide range of domains, including motion, color, spatial relations, number, and false belief understanding. While we do not find support for the idea that language determines the basic categories of thought or that it overwrites preexisting conceptual distinctions, we do find support for the proposal that language can make some distinctions difficult to avoid, as well as for the proposal that language can augment certain types of thinking. Further, we highlight recent evidence suggesting that language may induce a relatively schematic mode of thinking. Although the literature on linguistic relativity remains contentious, there is growing support for the view that language has a profound effect on thought. 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. WIREs Cogn Sci 2010 DOI: 10.1002/wcs.104 INTRODUCTION rise to several logical paradoxes.6 However, a recent resurgence of research in this area has uncovered olk psychology tells us that human cognition subtle and intriguing interactions between language depends on language, and further, that this F and thought, leading to a number of more nuanced dependency creates differences in thought across versions of the proposal. language communities. Although often mistaken, folk psychology appears to be at least partially correct in this case.
    [Show full text]
  • Languages and Worldview
    LANGUAGES AND WORLDVIEW Manon Allard-Kropp University of Missouri–St. Louis University of Missouri–St. Louis Languages and Worldview Manon Allard-Kropp This text is disseminated via the Open Education Resource (OER) LibreTexts Project (https://LibreTexts.org) and like the hundreds of other texts available within this powerful platform, it freely available for reading, printing and "consuming." Most, but not all, pages in the library have licenses that may allow individuals to make changes, save, and print this book. Carefully consult the applicable license(s) before pursuing such effects. Instructors can adopt existing LibreTexts texts or Remix them to quickly build course-specific resources to meet the needs of their students. Unlike traditional textbooks, LibreTexts’ web based origins allow powerful integration of advanced features and new technologies to support learning. The LibreTexts mission is to unite students, faculty and scholars in a cooperative effort to develop an easy-to-use online platform for the construction, customization, and dissemination of OER content to reduce the burdens of unreasonable textbook costs to our students and society. The LibreTexts project is a multi-institutional collaborative venture to develop the next generation of open-access texts to improve postsecondary education at all levels of higher learning by developing an Open Access Resource environment. The project currently consists of 13 independently operating and interconnected libraries that are constantly being optimized by students, faculty, and outside experts to supplant conventional paper-based books. These free textbook alternatives are organized within a central environment that is both vertically (from advance to basic level) and horizontally (across different fields) integrated.
    [Show full text]
  • How Does Our Language Shape the Way We Think?
    To arrive at the edge of the world's knowledge, seek out the most complex and sophisticated minds, put them in a room together, and have them ask each other the questions they are asking themselves. HOW DOES OUR LANGUAGE SHAPE THE WAY WE THINK? Lera Boroditsky [6.11.09] For a long time, the idea that language might shape thought was considered at best untestable and more often simply wrong. Research in my labs at Stanford University and at MIT has helped reopen this question. We have collected data around the world: from China, Greece, Chile, Indonesia, Russia, and Aboriginal Australia. What we have learned is that people who speak different languages do indeed think differently and that even flukes of grammar can profoundly affect how we see the world. Language is a uniquely human gift, central to our experience of being human. Appreciating its role in constructing our mental lives brings us one step closer to understanding the very nature of humanity. LERA BORODITSKY is an assistant professor of psychology, neuroscience, and symbolic systems at Stanford University, who looks at how the languages we speak shape the way we think. Humans communicate with one another using a dazzling array of languages, each differing from the next in innumerable ways. Do the languages we speak shape the way we see the world, the way we think, and the way we live our lives? Do people who speak different languages think differently simply because they speak different languages? Does learning new languages change the way you think? Do polyglots think differently when speaking different languages? These questions touch on nearly all of the major controversies in the study of mind.
    [Show full text]
  • Do English and Mandarin Speakers Think Differently About Time?
    Do English and Mandarin Speakers Think Differently About Time? Lera Boroditsky (lera@stanford.edu) Department of Psychology, 450 Serra Mall, Bldg. 420 Stanford, CA 94305 USA Abstract bounded events, unidirectional change, etc.) appear to be universal across cultures and languages. Do the languages we speak shape the ways we think? Boroditsky, (2001) demonstrated that speakers of English and However, there are many aspects of our concept of time Mandarin think differently about time. This work has recently that are not observable in the world. For example, does time been brought into question (January & Kako, 2007; Chen, move horizontally or vertically? Does it move forward or 2007). Here I present new evidence that again demonstrates a back, left or right, up or down? Does it move past us, or do difference between English and Mandarin speakers’ we move through it? All of these aspects are left unspecified construals of time. Both languages use horizontal and vertical in our experience with the world. They are however, spatial language to talk about time. For example, in English we might say that the best is ahead of us, or we may move a specified in our language —most often through spatial meeting up. In English, vertical metaphors are relatively metaphors. infrequent and horizontal metaphors predominate. In Across languages, people use spatial metaphors to talk Mandarin, both horizontal and vertical metaphors are about time. Whether they are looking forward to a brighter frequent. Importantly, vertical metaphors are much more tomorrow, proposing theories ahead of their time, or falling frequent in Mandarin than they are in English.
    [Show full text]